WARC today released the first concept diagram for its new Experimental Orbital Transportation Vehicle (XOTV). Dubbed "Matilda 1", the XOTV Scale Concept Model (SCM) will measure around 2.3 metres (7.5 feet) long by 1.8 metres (6 foot) from fin tip to fin tip. Matilda 1 will be used for flight control testing and glide path calculation.

Construction of the XOTV SCM will begin in early December 2008 with first drop tests expected to occur in early February 2009. Further information will be uploaded as it becomes available.

Background Information
The Wallhead Aerospace Research Centre (WARC) was formed in early 2008 by Peter Wallhead to encourage the design and production of technologies that will enhance Australia's presence within the international space community.

Once again Aussies set a new standart for mediocrity . That thing looks like it'll fly like a rock, it has almost no lifting surface and looks more like a steerable reentry capsule than a hypersonic glider. Also I see no practical use from building 1:10 scale model. Whatever data you get from it won't be terrebly useful for designing something 10 times the size and 1000 times the mass. It's like building a model UAV jet plane and extrapolating the data to build a new 30t jet figher. That just ain't happening. The whole thing looks like something an amateur rocket club would do and somehow I ain't surprised if ASRI is involved. Aussies can do better than that, considering that they are world leaders in unclassified scamjet tech.

Once again Aussies set a new standard for mediocrity . That thing looks like it'll fly like a rock, it has almost no lifting surface and looks more like a steerable reentry capsule than a hypersonic glider.

Please note: The XOTV SCM is only a "concept" and the design is only based on the actual full size XOTV. The XOTV SCM is not designed for hypersonic flight and will be only used as a drop test model to test control service configurations. The full size XOTV will be launched like a conventional rocket either in a "space shuttle type" setup or air launced from a high altitude weather balloon.

Horus wrote:

The whole thing looks like something an amateur rocket club would do and somehow I ain't surprised if ASRI is involved.

Wallhead Aerospace Research Centre is independently funded and not currently in contact or involvement with any other aerospace research group.

I second that, welcome to our big cosy family Peter, sorry if I sounded a bit snappy before, I was a bit under the weather then with the rain 'n' all outside.

In any case that are the objectives of the project and are there any interesting tech that you guys are hoping to prove with that "Matilda" thing? What are the areas you'd like to innovate in. Even if it doesn't go beyond model stage there are likely to be spin off applications in say UAV aviation if you do this right...

In any case what are the objectives of the project and are there any interesting tech that you guys are hoping to prove with that "Matilda" thing?

Objective of the XOTV SCM project will be to demonstrate the possible design of a low cost, unmanned and reusable Orbital Transportation Vehicle (think Space Shuttle, but unmanned and much smaller) that can be used to launch micro satellite payloads to LEO (Approx. 150km, 93miles in altitude).

Technology proving wise:

1. Launched from a high altitude weather balloon at an altitude of ~35km (21miles)

OR

2. Combining traditional launch technologies, such as the Space Shuttle launch system, and newer scramjet/ramjet technologies. Also under development currently by WARC is a ScramSpike Engine (SSE) (details of this project are classified).

Once again Aussies set a new standart for mediocrity . That thing looks like it'll fly like a rock, it has almost no lifting surface and looks more like a steerable reentry capsule than a hypersonic glider. .

For safety reasons one constraint that is placed on space planes is the ability to abort on approach and land on another runway and if nessassary glide 'round the world unpowered for another pass and perform orbital reentry incertion on short notice from any part of LEO. Hence gliding characteristics of orbiter are all important. While these requirements do not affect USA or Russia as much due to their huge size and a number of potential airfields available, Australia is only a few thousand k's across and this means if you screw up on approach, you got no choice but to break off and fly for another orbit unless you are willing to go for a splashdown. This is the main weakness of "reentry capsules with fins", but I suppose it's a trade off between bigger playload and more aerodynamic performance. For microsattellite launcers the problem isn't as acute 'cause smaller planes have higher lift to mass ratio, but for manned orbiters it becomes a big issue.

You mentioned the option of a "splashdown" landing, but why not a parachute assisted landing on land (such as the X-38 CRV)? Hypothetically, somewhere near Woomera (South Australia, for all non Aussies) could act as a perfect landing area?

XOTV wise, a runway landing would be preferred, but not really necessary because after a mission to LEO it would just be an empty, light weight shell (i.e. No fuel or payload) so it could be landed on either land or water.

--clip--While these requirements do not affect USA or Russia as much due to their huge size and a number of potential airfields available, Australia is only a few thousand k's across and this means if you screw up on approach, you got no choice but to break off and fly for another orbit unless you are willing to go for a splashdown.

Er, Australia is as big a target to hit as the US...smaller than Russia though. I have always wondered why nmore people don't use Woomera and Oz in general for rocket launches and recoveries.

Surely its still better to have a steerable re-rentry capsule than a non-steerable one???? With a non-steer, the scenario you promote above would be worse (might even miss the US completely, with no chance of steering closer). Lets be honest, the Space shuttle glides like a brick - this isnt likely to be any worse.